Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

Post anything that doesn't belong in any other forum, including gaming and topics unrelated to motorsport. Site specific discussions should go in the site feedback forum.
User avatar
hollus
Moderator
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:21 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

Post

Keep it civil, thanks.
Rivals, not enemies.

mrluke
mrluke
33
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 7:31 pm

Re: Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

Post

Andres125sx wrote:
Thu Dec 15, 2022 7:48 am
mrluke wrote:
Wed Dec 14, 2022 4:01 pm
Andres125sx wrote:
Wed Dec 14, 2022 8:13 am


This has been discussed before. CO2 levels are irrelevant, what matters is the rate of CO2 increase. In the paleo era, like any other except currently, any increase took hundreds thousands years, or millions years, allowing vegetals and animals to adapt, contrary to current increase wich is taking a few decades wich makes imposible to adapt to any form of life

It´s shocking to continue reading comments ignoring a crucial fact like this #-o
It isn't a fact. We aren't seeing the fastest change of co2 ever in the history of the world
Before claiming something is false, you should provide some fact, data, source... anything wich contradicts the data I posted, because I didn´t post any opinion, I posted facts supported by links and graphs. Significant CO2 changes takes millions years, not few decades.
Image

CO2 levels are not higher than they have ever been and seing the swings of over 700ppm really puts our local change into perspective.

To be clear I 100% agree that man made climate change is real and will be a disaster for us, however that doesnt mean we can make up alarmists statements to try and reinforce the position.

The facts and evidence are good enough as they are, embellishing them is not required and only devalues the credibility of the argument.
mrluke wrote:
Wed Dec 14, 2022 4:01 pm
and pretty much all plants and animals will cope or even thrive with higher concentrations.
Stating this, apart from false itself, is extremelly irresponsible TBH Loads of plants and animales are extinghising in this and past century, this is not a prediction, this is a fact
Nature is declining globally at rates unprecedented in human history – and the rate of species extinctions is accelerating
[...]
The overwhelming evidence of the IPBES Global Assessment, from a wide range of different fields of knowledge, presents an ominous picture,” said IPBES Chair, Sir Robert Watson. “The health of ecosystems on which we and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever. We are eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide
That is a strawman argument.

Are we causing a mass extinction event. Yes
Are we changing our climate further exacerabting the above? Yes.
Are plants and animals dying directly from toxic levels of co2? No.
CC maybe is not main responsible...
To increase the policy-relevance of the Report, the assessment’s authors have ranked, for the first time at this scale and based on a thorough analysis of the available evidence, the five direct drivers of change in nature with the largest relative global impacts so far. These culprits are, in descending order: (1) changes in land and sea use; (2) direct exploitation of organisms; (3) climate change; (4) pollution and (5) invasive alien species.
...but it adds to the problem... but you claim the rest of species still alive will adapt?? That´s what is called wishful thinking, but unfortunately it is plain wrong

Quotes from this link:
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopme ... ed-report/

We should be a little bit responsible before posting this kind of nosense
[/quote]

More strawman.

You will have much higher levels of Co2 inside your car then you do when you get out of it. Does it cause you any direct harm? No.

If you let your dog in the car with you, does it come to harm from the Co2? No.

Co2 concentrations at the level we are talking about are not directly harmful.

The warming of the planet, regardless of its source, is a challenge for everything living on it.

User avatar
Andres125sx
166
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:15 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

Post

mrluke wrote:
Thu Dec 15, 2022 11:10 pm
Andres125sx wrote:
Thu Dec 15, 2022 7:48 am
mrluke wrote:
Wed Dec 14, 2022 4:01 pm


It isn't a fact. We aren't seeing the fastest change of co2 ever in the history of the world
Before claiming something is false, you should provide some fact, data, source... anything wich contradicts the data I posted, because I didn´t post any opinion, I posted facts supported by links and graphs. Significant CO2 changes takes millions years, not few decades.
https://today.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploa ... _1200w.png

CO2 levels are not higher than they have ever been and seing the swings of over 700ppm really puts our local change into perspective.

To be clear I 100% agree that man made climate change is real and will be a disaster for us, however that doesnt mean we can make up alarmists statements to try and reinforce the position.

The facts and evidence are good enough as they are, embellishing them is not required and only devalues the credibility of the argument.
mrluke wrote:
Wed Dec 14, 2022 4:01 pm
and pretty much all plants and animals will cope or even thrive with higher concentrations.
Stating this, apart from false itself, is extremelly irresponsible TBH Loads of plants and animales are extinghising in this and past century, this is not a prediction, this is a fact
Nature is declining globally at rates unprecedented in human history – and the rate of species extinctions is accelerating
[...]
The overwhelming evidence of the IPBES Global Assessment, from a wide range of different fields of knowledge, presents an ominous picture,” said IPBES Chair, Sir Robert Watson. “The health of ecosystems on which we and all other species depend is deteriorating more rapidly than ever. We are eroding the very foundations of our economies, livelihoods, food security, health and quality of life worldwide
That is a strawman argument.

Are we causing a mass extinction event. Yes
Are we changing our climate further exacerabting the above? Yes.
Are plants and animals dying directly from toxic levels of co2? No.
So you know better than scientists... but can´t provide any link or source to prove it #-o :lol: :lol: :lol:

Plants and animals don´t die because of CO2 levels, true, they die because CO2 levels change the climate, temperature and environment, making it imposible for them to adapt, and die.

Reefs are a good example, CC is increasing sea temperature at a faster rate reefs can adapt. Desertification is another good example. But you claim this problems do not exist? :wtf: #-o

mrluke wrote:
Thu Dec 15, 2022 11:10 pm

https://today.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploa ... _1200w.png

CO2 levels are not higher than they have ever been and seing the swings of over 700ppm really puts our local change into perspective.
Please read before replying, problem is not CO2 levels, problem is the time it takes that change in CO2 level. Look at the graph you posted yourself with more attention, the scale is not uniform. What at the start of the graph is 10 millions years, in the end is 100 years, a scale 100000 smaller... a fact naysayers always ignore, not sure if because of ignorance, or just for their own peace of mind
mrluke wrote:
Thu Dec 15, 2022 11:10 pm
To be clear I 100% agree that man made climate change is real and will be a disaster for us, however that doesnt mean we can make up alarmists statements to try and reinforce the position.

The facts and evidence are good enough as they are, embellishing them is not required and only devalues the credibility of the argument.
Agree, but you should apply that to yourself. I´ve not made any alamist statement, only proven facts, even if some of you can´t accept reality, reality is still reality

mrluke wrote:
Thu Dec 15, 2022 11:10 pm
CC maybe is not main responsible...
To increase the policy-relevance of the Report, the assessment’s authors have ranked, for the first time at this scale and based on a thorough analysis of the available evidence, the five direct drivers of change in nature with the largest relative global impacts so far. These culprits are, in descending order: (1) changes in land and sea use; (2) direct exploitation of organisms; (3) climate change; (4) pollution and (5) invasive alien species.
...but it adds to the problem... but you claim the rest of species still alive will adapt?? That´s what is called wishful thinking, but unfortunately it is plain wrong

Quotes from this link:
https://www.un.org/sustainabledevelopme ... ed-report/

We should be a little bit responsible before posting this kind of nosense
More strawman.

You will have much higher levels of Co2 inside your car then you do when you get out of it. Does it cause you any direct harm? No.

If you let your dog in the car with you, does it come to harm from the Co2? No.

Co2 concentrations at the level we are talking about are not directly harmful.

The warming of the planet, regardless of its source, is a challenge for everything living on it.
[/quote]


Strawman argument did you say? :roll:

CO2 is killing people? No, none said that
CO2 is killing plants? No, none said that
CO2 is changing climate? Yes, unquestionable
CC is changing environment? Yes, unquestionable
Environment and climate change is changing conditions faster than animals and plants can adapt? Yes, unquestionable

User avatar
Andres125sx
166
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:15 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

Post

Greg Locock wrote:
Thu Dec 15, 2022 11:34 am
Oh, some comedy corner populist thing, I assumed you actually had a peer reviewed paper.

So Mauna Loa detects CO2 with a time constant of the order of 1 hour. A little shell growing in the sea responds at the rate of perhaps a year at best.

Do you understand the issue?
You cannot easily compare the two. But of course you'd have learned that in lectures.
So you know better than a paleoclimatologist who said this?
The 66 million-year geologic story shows an overall trend of gradual, naturally declining CO2 over tens of millions of years, concluding in the geologically recent ice ages. Crucially, this history also reveals the extreme, unnatural, skyrocketing rise in CO2 levels over the last 150 years

I know, scientists knows nothing, only you know better than anyone, if you can´t provide any link, data or source to support your claims that´s because... Why exactly? :twisted:

User avatar
Big Tea
99
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:57 pm

Re: Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

Post

No comment as most of us already know this, but it is an interesting watch, its about Milankovitch Cycles.
The thermometer was around in the mid 15's, do we know how well they were cross calibrated?
Don't think records of less than half a Degree were reliable until digital recorders, as many were taken from places like the mast of a sailing ship in a gale. Not saying disregard them, but use discretion when comparing data from hundreds of miles apart let alone thousands.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01aFP88qfQs
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.

mrluke
mrluke
33
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2013 7:31 pm

Re: Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

Post

Andres125sx wrote:
Fri Dec 16, 2022 8:28 am
Strawman argument did you say? :roll:

CO2 is killing people? No, none said that
CO2 is killing plants? No, none said that
CO2 is changing climate? Yes, unquestionable
CC is changing environment? Yes, unquestionable
Environment and climate change is changing conditions faster than animals and plants can adapt? Yes, unquestionable
Umm I said
mrluke wrote:
Wed Dec 14, 2022 4:01 pm
It isn't a fact. We aren't seeing the fastest change of co2 ever in the history of the world and pretty much all plants and animals will cope or even thrive with higher concentrations.

The downside is the impact on global weather and sea levels.
Which impacts our current living and tech arrangements.
And you quoted me and said.
Andres125sx wrote:
Thu Dec 15, 2022 7:48 am
Stating this, apart from false itself, is extremelly irresponsible TBH Loads of plants and animales are extinghising in this and past century, this is not a prediction, this is a fact
So when I said CO2 isnt the issue per se, its the changing climate thats causing the issue, you told me I was being extremelly irresponsible to suggest such a thing.

And now you say you agree with me.

In the middle of a post saying I should read your posts more carefully.

What are we doing here?

Unfortunately we dont have any way of measuring Co2 changes that happened millions of years ago to anything like the resolution of modern times.

Greg Locock
Greg Locock
233
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 11:48 pm

Re: Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

Post

Our most accurate record of non instrumental CO2 is ice cores, and boy are they an interesting story. The snowfall catches air which gets compacted down and nominally sealed by subsequent snow. But once the snow is compacted, the entrained gas diffuses into adjoining layers, so the CO2 signal is blurred with depth, which means it is blurred with time. There's a second blurring effect when the snow is near the surface, in that atmospheric gas still leaches into and out of the buried snow

The ice cores are sliced into slices typically an inch think, melted, and analysed. As such the best possible resolution of CO2 change per century is masked by near surface diffusion, long term diffusion, and the slice thickness.

Proxies for CO2 in the atmosphere include seashells, where an optimist hopes that sea shell growth is a function of carbonate ions in sea water. Rather like the blind hope that tree ring width is controlled by temperature, this flies in the face of experience, and is also blurred by the slow rate of change of seawater composition in response to atmospheric changes.

johnny comelately
johnny comelately
110
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:55 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

Post

Greg Locock wrote:
Sun Dec 18, 2022 5:35 am
Our most accurate record of non instrumental CO2 is ice cores, and boy are they an interesting story. The snowfall catches air which gets compacted down and nominally sealed by subsequent snow. But once the snow is compacted, the entrained gas diffuses into adjoining layers, so the CO2 signal is blurred with depth, which means it is blurred with time. There's a second blurring effect when the snow is near the surface, in that atmospheric gas still leaches into and out of the buried snow

The ice cores are sliced into slices typically an inch think, melted, and analysed. As such the best possible resolution of CO2 change per century is masked by near surface diffusion, long term diffusion, and the slice thickness.

Proxies for CO2 in the atmosphere include seashells, where an optimist hopes that sea shell growth is a function of carbonate ions in sea water. Rather like the blind hope that tree ring width is controlled by temperature, this flies in the face of experience, and is also blurred by the slow rate of change of seawater composition in response to atmospheric changes.
Why isnt there upvote capability on this topic?
Very good Greg, most interesting

User avatar
Andres125sx
166
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:15 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

Post

Greg Locock wrote:
Sun Dec 18, 2022 5:35 am
Our most accurate record of non instrumental CO2 is ice cores, and boy are they an interesting story. The snowfall catches air which gets compacted down and nominally sealed by subsequent snow. But once the snow is compacted, the entrained gas diffuses into adjoining layers, so the CO2 signal is blurred with depth, which means it is blurred with time. There's a second blurring effect when the snow is near the surface, in that atmospheric gas still leaches into and out of the buried snow

The ice cores are sliced into slices typically an inch think, melted, and analysed. As such the best possible resolution of CO2 change per century is masked by near surface diffusion, long term diffusion, and the slice thickness.

Proxies for CO2 in the atmosphere include seashells, where an optimist hopes that sea shell growth is a function of carbonate ions in sea water. Rather like the blind hope that tree ring width is controlled by temperature, this flies in the face of experience, and is also blurred by the slow rate of change of seawater composition in response to atmospheric changes.
Interesting, thanks, but how do that affect the rocketing increase in CO2 in last decades?

Sincerely, looks like some people is eager to find any unnacurancy in the scientific method to negate CC and accept naysayers theories... :o



Let´s simplify things a bit, ignore any estimations (wich are daily used in any scientific method, but let´s ignore them), and let´s focus on real measures.
For decades, ground-based observatories have been measuring CO2, and those measurements have been steadily climbing. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide now averages more than 400 parts per million, year-round, which is more than one third higher than CO2 levels before modern industrialization and fossil fuel use began.
Do you think a 33% increase in atmospheric CO2 in a few decades (key point) is normal, natural and will have no impact on environment and/or biodiversity?

Do you think the increasing rate of extinghising species is just a coincidence?

Image
https://www.forbes.com/sites/grrlscient ... 68d385fa30

Obviously there are a lot more factors, but corals for example are mainly affected by temperature, wich is affected by CO2 concentration


<mod removal: Let's not go into personal challenges, please>.

User avatar
hollus
Moderator
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:21 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

Post

I'd rather discuss the data and what it says and does not say than assume an outcome and then focus on that. (And I am very appreciative of seeing the data described from the point of view of people that oppose my views).
And the fact is that anything further back than 1850-ish, is either a model or a proxy measurement. In some cases like global temperatures, anything beyond 1900-ish.
We simply do not have records with, say, daily measurements in a calibrated detector, before that.

Now scientist do estimate by proxy all the time. I should know, I am one of them. A data point by proxy is better than no data point at all. But the moment you jump into modeling, and proxy data always does this, your model assumptions creep into your results. And the moment you do anything looking at a proxy, the assumptions that one can interpolate flattens many things to linear, or a ceteris paribus assumption needs to be made which rarely is completely fail proof. And it might be correct 90% of the time and correct-ish 99% of the time if it is a good proxy, but there is no way to know if your particular case is in that 90%.

And yes, past signals used for those proxies, tend to be time and space averages.

So, is this the fastest rate change in CO2 in history (2-3 CO2 ppm / year, sustained over decades)? Probably yes, but there is no way to be sure with the data available. Models also suggest that it probably is.

The data does not say because it can't. Detailed non-decade averaged data with some sort of global coverage only goes 100-150 years back. So the reference data for comparison does not exist.
And the models are models, so that can only suggest it.

I mean it is what it is. Wishing that we had data we don't have is just wishing. Would be great, but we don't. So a certain degree of uncertainty, both about the future and about the past, has to be accepted and cannot be wished away.

Now, something would have to be royally wrong with the models for this current global CO2 experiment not to lead to multiple (more than 2) degrees of temperature increases. Many different models run in many different ways by many different groups would need to be wrong, actually. But still, models they remain. Calling the result of a model the undisputable truth is a stretch. Predictions about the future are best done in probabilities.

I know where I stand on this debate, but I am more than happy to discuss the data and its limitations.
Let's not veer into politics of whether climate change is real or not, harmful or not. Please! Nothing good lies that way and it will not be allowed to poison the rest of the forum.
Rivals, not enemies.

User avatar
Big Tea
99
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2017 7:57 pm

Re: Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

Post

Dont know if this should go in here or one of the fuel threads.

Jump the first 5 min, then interesting stuff about Efuels

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaUhmhl9BPo
When arguing with a fool, be sure the other person is not doing the same thing.

User avatar
Andres125sx
166
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:15 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

Post

hollus wrote:
Sun Dec 18, 2022 1:36 pm
Wishing that we had data we don't have is just wishing. Would be great, but we don't. So a certain degree of uncertainty, both about the future and about the past, has to be accepted and cannot be wished away.
That is the problem, in our modern world people tend to assume anything wich can´t be proved without any degree of uncertainty is false, or a manipulation from someone with hidden interests.

When you can´t know something for sure, you should rely on the experts opinions to determine what to do, and experts have been claiming what to do for decades, reducing emissions and pollution to stop or reduce the unquestionable increase in atmospheric CO2 in last decades

But we´re humans, we tend to think we know better than any expert, so any report pointing the uncertainties of scientific method are taken as an evidence of the contrary, when not even (most of) those models were intended for that purpose.

Maybe they´re not 100% accurate, but that´s the best we have, and if true, the consequences would be so devastating common sense dictates we should never assume such a risk.

Anyone with a brain knows when the threat is this huge, the sensible thing to do is to assume it´s real. If it´s not we may overreact, but if it´s true and we ignore it, we´d cause irremediable damage so that should never be an option

It is as simple as keeping in the safe side, specially when scientific comunity (not politicians) have been warming us for decades. What politicians say is irrelevant, but what scientific comunity says is not

User avatar
hollus
Moderator
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:21 am
Location: Copenhagen, Denmark

Re: Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

Post

Andres125sx wrote:
Mon Dec 19, 2022 8:34 am
… specially when scientific comunity (not politicians) have been warming us for decades…
:twisted:
Rivals, not enemies.

User avatar
Andres125sx
166
Joined: Tue Aug 13, 2013 9:15 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

Post

What an appropiate typo :mrgreen:

johnny comelately
johnny comelately
110
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 11:55 pm
Location: Australia

Re: Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

Post

The collapse of plans by two of Australia's richest people to export solar power from the country's sun-drenched north to Singapore highlights the extreme difficulty of developing mega renewable energy projects, according to experts.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-01-23/ ... /101873700